Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations/Archive
An archive for 2008 nominations that didn't make it for some reason. You can rewrite the articles, changing them on the points that were the main criteria for not featuring them, and then renominate them. When you do, shortly include the reasons it wasn't nominated the last time, and leave the archive entry standing here. ---- Federation history (6th September, 2008) Having found this article more or less as a stub, I've majorly expanded it. After all, Federation history states one of the most centric topics of Star Trek in my eyes. --36ophiuchi 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) *'Support': Very nicely laid out article that goes into depth about Federation history and covers, as far as I can see, all points relevant to the article. The images are relevant to the text and nicely chosen. I would also have to say that Federation history is one of the major aspects of Star Trek. -- TrekFan 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) *'Comment': The "fan"-type comments in the background section need to be eliminated. --Alan 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC) **Done. --36ophiuchi 11:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC) *'Comment': It'd be really nice to get at least some more feedback.--36ophiuchi 11:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC) *'Oppose': I was reserving an oppose vote to see what kind of feedback came from other users but there hasn't been much comment on this article so far. With that, my main issue is that this article and the main Federation article seem to duplicate each other in some respects. For this to be a true "branch article", there should not be any one section which is largely repeated in both articles. I also think the article would tremendously benefit from a "key dates" section which breaks down the lenghty narrative into a single timetable at the end of each section or the article as a whole. Last but not least (and this is not something I would soley object about) there has been no peer review that I could find. I am also kind of in the camp of Alan with the recent tidle wave of FA nominations and feel that we've a bit loose with these. For an article to be an FA it should simply display such a lasting impression that one would want to return to Memory Alpha and read it again and again. This article does not convey that impression, at least for me. -FC 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC) **I started a peer review a couple of weeks ago, albeit without getting any resonance. Furthermore, there are numerous articles on MA displaying the same info in parts. The main Federation article does have a history-section, too, giving kind of an extremely short summary. I think it is absolutely beneficial to have a very short summary of a branch article on a main article-page. After all, articles like Federation state some kind of a collection of summarized branch articles. Moreover, I'd like to know if there is a limitation of FA proposals over a certain period of time? I see no problem in proposing new FAs week after week as long peer reviews were conducted before. Nevertheless, I thank you for your idea of a key dates-section. I'll look into that. --36ophiuchi 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC) *** I've added a Summary of key dates to the article. --36ophiuchi 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) *'Neutral'. I also fear that (although I have not been here nearly as long as anyone else) that we are being a little more cavalier with featured articles than we should be. There is very little doubt to me that this is a well written article that has had a lot of time, research, and effort put into it. That said, I think FAs should be truly spectacular, and I just don't get that feeling from it. I share the concerns that FC had. As some of those seem to be in the process of being addressed, I will not outright oppose this article, but I don't support it either.--31dot 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC) :With no new comments in 2 weeks, article is considered a fail. -- TrekFan Talk 11:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Operation Fort Knox (Aug 25, 2008) Self nomination - I attempted to put this article through a peer review but got no replies, so I thought I should go ahead and nominate it anyway. I know it isn't the longest of articles but I believe I incorporated all the necessary detail and relevant images match up with the text. I also believe the format of the article matches the subject matter. Again, I know it is short compared to other FAs but I believe the detail is there. If nothing else, I would appreciate the comments on how to improve the article further. Thanks! --- TrekFan 01:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC) *'Support': An article does not need to be overly long in order to be complete. The formatting is well done, as is the illustration. --36ophiuchi 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC) *'Comment': This in-flux of nominations is looking more and more like a "mutual admiration club" than anything else, seeing as it really only involving the same few (newer) contributors, where the resulting votes are not really taking an "accurate temperature" of the entire MA community. A featured article is not, by definition, merely a "complete article", especially one that reads like a excerpt of events that essentially read like an abbreviated episode summary. I am not personally in favor of featuring an article than requires very little research or effort in compiling, for the aforementioned reasons. --Alan 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ::@ Alan: 1. It is not my fault, that TrekFan and I have obviously been the only ones to put some attention to the nomination for featured articles. 2. 36ophiuchi is my follow-up alias to User:BlueMars, whose first edit was in March 2004!!! I wouldn't call me a "new" user. --> No offense, but you would by well advised to think before you write. --36ophiuchi 10:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC) * Oppose: Echo concerns of Alan. Also this article is way too short, has no external links, and just doesnt provide the kind of "impressiveness" that a featured article should bring. Needs a major expansion, rewrite, and addition of more links and more information. -FC 03:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC) * Oppose, though not really due to length. I agree with Alan: while the article is well written, it is essentially a shortened episode summary. Since all the information comes from one episode, compiling and writing the information probably did not require a lot of effort. I also agree with FC in that it's just not as impressive as I believe a featured article should be. Featured articles are supposed to be examples of the Memory Alpha community's best work; this isn't it, in my opinion. Again, it's well-written and concise, but it look like it required little effort or research and it lacks the "wow" factor I feel all featured articles should have. --From Andoria with Love 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC) :Comment: I thank you for your thoughts on the article. Part of the reason I nominated the article was so I could get some kind of feedback, as Peer Reviews don't seem to work. Thanks for taking a look at it, all the same. PS. I do not believe this is "mutual admiration" as Alan put it. Just because I regularly visit the nominations page does not mean I am only supporting other articles because mine have been supporting also. I am simply trying to get involved with the process and the community here at MA. I am sorry that I haven't been contributing for four or five years like some of you here, but there is nothing I can do about that other than to try my best to get involved and gain the experience. When I see an article I like and I think deserves to be an FA, I nominate it. Simple as that. Just because I regularly nominate articles does not mean I do it for a return vote. -- TrekFan 13:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC) *'Oppose'. I must agree with what has been said so far. It is a well written article, but I don't really get a "Wow" feeling when I read it. As said already, it really isn't much more than an episode summary right now. That doesn't take away from the quality of the writing, but I don't think it qualifies as "featured" material yet.--31dot 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC) *'Oppose' I'm sorry, but this reads simply like a shortened version of the Dark Frontier summary. Much more work is needed. One thing I have learned is that getting an article to FA status is a very gradual process in which the article, to paraphrase the Borg, evolves to perfection. This takes a long time and many changes/contributions. The last 3 that got approval, if I am not mistaken, took over a year each. – [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (Feb 25, 2008) This is the first time I've nominated something, but I have read through the requirements, and this article seems to have everything necessary: a thorough and well written summary, excellent use of images, well chosen quotes, a very detailed background section, and a good reference section. I've looked at a lot of other DS9 episode that are featured (such as , and ), and seems at least on a par with them – Bertaut talk 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :Support: I was one of the major contributors to this article, but it has been edited and re-worked extensively by many others since I worked on it and I think it's a pretty damned good candidate for a Featured Article now. The article is long and detailed, well written and informative, with a particularly thorough Background Info section and a good selection of appropriate, high-quality pictures. One minor point: I think a couple of extra memorable quotes could be added, and the rather unmemorable one about the Prophets finding quarters for Admiral Rifkin could be removed. Aside from that, support support support! -- Taduolus 11:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ::Comment: I've added six or seven new quotes. – Bertaut talk 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :::Support-- Rom Ulan 19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) :::*Archiving. Failed. Not enough votes. -- Rom Ulan 21:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Krenim weapon ship (Feb 19, 2008) I do not know if I am placing this in the right spot on this page, since nobody has even voted on it yet. But I would like to nominate the article Krenim weapon ship. I re-wrote it late last year. I tried to create a concise, clear, totally encyclopedic, comprehensively informative piece, in much the same vein as Borg-Species 8472 War. – [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC) :Comment: Not bad. Could benefit from some pictures and discussion of the interior layout. It is unfortunate that there is no background info. Was anything worth noting stated in Star Trek: The Magazine or some other publication? Couldn't hurt to have a picture or two of some crew members as well. -- Connor Cabal 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Update: Added more images and a bit more structure. Unfortuntely there is no information regarding the vessel's layout (Stsr Trek magazine is not, I believe, a canon source, and the only two crewmembers known for certain are Annorax and Obrist.– [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 19:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) ::It's not a canon source, but it is good for production behind the scenes stuff. And I think that's what Connor was suggesting. -- Sulfur 19:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC) ::: The layout is not the best, having a whole section for the crew, just to say that there are only two known members and then a gallery of the two taking a big gouge out of the top of the page does not bode well in the aesthetics dept. --Alan del Beccio 05:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :Thanks for the suggestion. Fixed accordingly. Please tell me what else, though perhaps it is better to do so on my talk page than here.– [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :::I still honestly think that it needs a good . The level of writing needs to be gotten up to par. I've made a few cosmetic changes, but I have not see the episode in some time to make the proper upgrades to the article that seem to be missing, such as Tom and Chakotay's involvement and time aboard the ship. --Alan del Beccio 20:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination...for now. In keeping with suggestions, I have put the article up for peer review. Please contribute if you can. Thanks. – [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ::::Archiving-- Rom Ulan 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Return to Raimon 01-19-2008 *It has been awhile since I have done anything with this. I had opened a peer review on this almost 9 months ago, and have only received comments from a now banned user. I've written what I think to be a fairly complete summary, listed canon/non-canon characters, etc., all the jazz that I think makes our non-canon articles good. We even have that fun behind the scenes info on how the cover was created. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC) **'Comment'. I'm not sure how to put my finger on it, but, aside from the Summary, the text looks sort of bare-bones and formal. Sort of the difference between a telephone book (what I see here) and a travel brochure (making it interesting to the uninitiated). Particularly in the background, I'd like to see what you observed as worthy of mention. Was there anything unusual as far as the way characters or technology were depicted? Were there thematic similarities to any other episodes? How do we arrive at the date we've established for this story? I'm not a big fan of character sections, but it looks like the standard we have for these sort of pages. If it could be made to look more like what was done with "Ghosts", the only other Featured comic we've had, that would go a long way toward improving the visual appeal of the article. -- Connor Cabal 15:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) ***I'll take a look at the comic again, see what I can do to fix that. I of course was hoping to get comments like this in the peer review, but no one seems to look at those (this isn't directed at you Connor Cabal, and in fact I am just as guilty as everyone on that). I probably won't be able to do anything major until Monday, as my schedule probably won't allow me to be on much until then. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) **I'm kind of neutral. This goes back to what we define as a 'featured' article. Its quite thourough, but as Connor said, it doesn't really go above and beyond. However, the same could be said about a number of our featured articles. I am uncertain. Though the peer-review is probably a better setting for this, let me just say, the some possible additions (similar to those added to Ghosts during its PR and FA process) include an artwork section and some more thorough analysis of the greater context within Trek. --- Jaz 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC) *** 8 days inactivity, not a single support. archiving. -- Rom Ulan 12:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)